Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[Urs Liska]

Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:41:54 GMT-07:00, schrieb Thomas Morley <address@hidden>:
>2016-10-31 3:39 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> And of course
>> the _corresponding_ source code which will in general be under
>control
>> of the user.  There are some considerations when LSR code and similar
>> gets copied into documents: in that case, the source code of the
>> document might come under the licensing reign of the LSR code (do we
>> specify anything for it?).
>
>In
>http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html
>you could read:
>
>"Who owns LSR?
>
>You, me, and everybody. LSR is based on free tools (see the next
>section) and all the supporting code is free software distributed
>under the GNU General Public License.
>
>The content of the database is public domain, so you can use it, copy
>it, modify and redistribute it with no obligation."
>
>
>When entering a new snippet first thing you read is:
>
>"Important: By entering your snippet, you are placing it in the public
>domain. This includes also snippets taken from the Lilypond manual
>(the manual authors grant you their permission to do so)."
>
>

Hm.
The people from the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy were just explaining 
why "placing in the public domain" is a bad idea because it's more or less 
impossible under most jurisdictions. Anyone using such code is facing the risk 
that the copyright owner may revoke that within 25 years. 

Best
Urs

>Cheers,
>  Harm

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.